When she's right, she's right

I generally figure that there's no point linking to Instapundit because most people will probably read it there any way, but I just had to point out this line from Megan McArdle:

The law ought to try to strike a balance, but for reasons I don't understand, we've decided to max out turnout even though this means allowing quite a bit of fraud. Since what scant evidence we have indicates that dead, canine, and imaginary voters break heavily Democratic, this will hurt Bush on election day.

Priceless.

Comments

[jpe]

That's odd she doesn't understand. Voting is what those in the biz call a 'fundamental right'. What this means is that a voter's right will almost always trump other concerns.

Presumably she has more thoughts on the matter, but in classic Insty fashion has decided to be as terse as possible.

[Jeffrey Collins]

You seem to be the one that misunderstands. Of course, in our country, voting is fundamental. But my rights are trampled just as much by someone who votes fraudulently as they are when someone prevents me from voting. The net result is the same.

[jpe]

Presumably that's what she was thinking, but as the law stands, the mere possibility of voter fraud isn't enough to disenfranchise any given person. As for your alleged right not to have others' engage in voter fraud: show me that in the constitution.

I know it makes plenty of common sense that the net result is the same, but the moment we enter legal analysis, common sense is of limited utility.

I'd imagine an argument can be made about the need for stricter regulation of registration, so it's a little odd McArdle didn't provide it. Granted, analysis would seem stylistically out of place at instapundit, but still.....